Reset Coolify Application Labels

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint false), non-destructive (destructiveHint false), and idempotent. The description adds value by clarifying the effect on labels, routing, and the optional redeploy behavior, which aligns with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences convey the action, use case, and optional behavior without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, and the key points are front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and the optional redeploy. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide on invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the 'redeploy' parameter but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema, which already describes each parameter well.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The title and description explicitly state the action ('clear custom_labels') and resource ('application labels'), with a clear use case ('after changing domains to fix stale routing rules'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'coolify_update_application'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a concrete scenario ('Use this after changing domains to fix stale routing rules') that guides when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the guidance is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.